Has the Impeachment of Cheney been heard by the House Committee on the Judiciary?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

I was looking at the progress of the Cheney impeachment. When? What is the actual status now?


41. <110th> H.RES.333 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

:popcorn:

[Solly Mack]

1. Here you go:

Bills are placed on the calendar of the committee to which they have been assigned. Failure to act on a bill is equivalent to killing it. Bills in the House can only be released from committee without a proper committee vote by a discharge petition signed by a majority of the House membership (218 members).


Committee Steps:

Comments about the bill's merit are requested by government agencies.

Bill can be assigned to subcommittee by Chairman.

Hearings may be held.

Subcommittees report their findings to the full committee.

Finally there is a vote by the full committee - the bill is "ordered to be reported."

A committee will hold a "mark-up" session during which it will make revisions and additions. If substantial amendments are made, the committee can order the introduction of a "clean bill" which will include the proposed amendments. This new bill will have a new number and will be sent to the floor while the old bill is discarded.

The chamber must approve, change or reject all committee amendments before conducting a final passage vote.

After the bill is reported, the committee staff prepares a written report explaining why they favor the bill and why they wish to see their amendments, if any, adopted. Committee members who oppose a bill sometimes write a dissenting opinion in the report. The report is sent back to the whole chamber and is placed on the calendar.


In the House, most bills go to the Rules committee before reaching the floor. The committee adopts rules that will govern the procedures under which the bill will be considered by the House.

A "closed rule" sets strict time limits on debate and forbids the introduction of amendments. These rules can have a major impact on whether the bill passes. The rules committee can be bypassed in three ways: 1) members can move rules to be suspended (requires 2/3 vote)2) a discharge petition can be filed 3) the House can use a Calendar Wednesday procedure.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Thanks for the info

I wonder what's next?

[Solly Mack]

3. Your guess is as good as mine

[pat_k]

4. "a proposition to impeach. . . at once supersedes business otherwise in order."

Under House Rules, "a proposition to impeach. . . at once supersedes business otherwise in order."

As I read it, their failure to drop everything to deal with the impeachment resolution is a violation of their own rules.

Failure after failure. It's hard to take.

[Solly Mack]

5. Who knows what's happening with it...maybe some obscure rule

that buries it a little deeper

[pat_k]

7. Whatever their rationales and excuses. . .

If they fail to impeach, the Dems can kiss the WH and control of Congress goodbye. As predicted, their failure has already driven approval of Congress to http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,0,7184922.story?coll=la-home-center">the lowest in a decade. (It took some doing to drive it lower than the the corrupt rubber stamp Republican Congress.)

In politics, Strong and Wrong beats Weak and Right any day of the week.

And it crushes WEAK and WRONG.

Their choice couldn't be simpler.

Impeach and be strong.

Refuse and be wrong.

Anything short of impeachment is impotent gesture. If they refuse fight to rescue the Constitution with the ONLY "lethal" weapon in their arsenal, they will watch, dumbfounded, as a Republican President and Congress are sworn in -- just as they did in 1987 when they failed to impeach Reagan and Poppy Bush.

Impeachment is the only moral, patriotic, and politically viable option.

Impeach to Win. Refuse, You Lose.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k

[Solly Mack]

8. I'm all for Bush Inc (all of them) dying of old age in prison

[pat_k]

12. Impeachment isn't about them, it's about us. . .

Retribution is for the courts, not congress.

Certainly, justice demands that Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators be packed off to the Hague to answer for their war crimes (crimes that are subject to the penalty of death). But, impeachment isn't about punishing them for their crimes. It is about rescuing our Constitution, asserting our collective sovereignty, and restoring our self-esteem as Americans.

Prosecution of individuals can't save the nation. Only impeachment can do that.

Impeachment is the means by which we confront the horrible truth -- that we have become a war criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens -- as a nation. It is the means by which we enforce and dedicate ourselves to the dictates of our constitution -and the principle of consent (the SOLE moral principle on which our Constitution and therefore the nation is founded).

Until Bush and Cheney are impeached -- even if it must be an "in absentia impeachment by a future congress -- the USA cannot move forward as a nation in honesty.

[Solly Mack]

15. you're preaching to the choir

but I disagree that prosecution of an entire executive for their criminal actions can't help the nation...I think it would

a nation that won't even impeach a war criminal President isn't likely to pack them off to The Hague either...much less hold them accountable for their crimes in our own courts

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. yes exactly

[onenote]

10. nope

Here is the relevant provision from the House Rules:
Sec. 603: Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
House.
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in
motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member
or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535,
536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a
committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI,
543); by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to
a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed
and reported by an investigating committee of the House.


"by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee" -- exactly what was done in this case.

[pat_k]

13. You convenently excluded 604. (A proposition to impeach a question of privilege)

604. A proposition to impeach a question of privilege

A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045–2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560–62; see Deschler, ch. 14, § 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is filed from the floor as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819), and is called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828). The addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not reported by committee are also privileged (III, 2401), as is a proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107).

[onenote]

16. and a resolution dropped in the hopper is not a direct proposition

Sorry. If the Judiciary reports an impeachment resolution to the floor, then that becomes a question of high privilege. But the mere dropping of the resolution into the hopper -- which is what happened here -- is not.

It appears that you "conveniently" didn't read the very language you quoted: "a report of the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is filed from the floor as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819), and is called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828)."

[onenote]

6. No. And unless there is some dramatic new development I doubt it will be

Only one of the 8 co-sponsors is a member of the Judiciary Committee (Waters) and, typically, bills that don't garner major sponsorship from within the Committee tend to languish.

If Conyers decides to co-sponsor, it will get a hearing. Until then, probably not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. didn't Conyers say maybe?

[onenote]

11. I don't know that he has shut the door completely, but as I said

absent some new development, it seems unlikely that he will move on this. Could there be such a new development? Of course.

[Disturbed]

14. Cheney still spews the old lies and now is speing news ones

about Iran. Impeachment must begin ASAP! It matters not what projections of Senate votes may be. The facts must be put forth about Cheney's Crimes in front of America and the World.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. the general public is not aware of this

only probably a small number of informed people know what the VP has been up to